Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The claim that media has a liberal bias may have something to do with the fact that one simply does not want actions and statements by conservatives broadcast all over the world. It is embarrassing and makes the followers look stupid.
Actually i would suggest the exact opposite. Liberals have become so accustomed to the liberal bias in media when they turn on a channel like Fox they are like deer caught in the headlights.
I haven't seen the MNM complaining about the list of verboten words that shall not be used when covering Queen Hillary.
There are two reasons for that: the vast majority self-identify as Democrats. They're simply carrying Hillary's water, so they're more than happy to comply. Secondly, "reporters" in this country have become so PC that they don't report; they parrot. All one has to do is consider the daily a.m. "coordination" of news to be aired on the formerly big three networks. That's right. Every morning there's a conference call with the White House and those networks. And it shows.
Actually i would suggest the exact opposite. Liberals have become so accustomed to the liberal
bias in media when they turn on a channel like Fox they are like deer caught in the headlights.
don't actions and direct quotes from people more important criteria to judge? Reports of events and direct quotes, no matter biased left or right, are verifiable facts. Fox and MSNBC might encourage you to interpret these facts one way, put words in your mouth. But we also are in posession of our own minds. Can we not judge the consequences of the positions conservatives take and the laws they pass on the society we live in for ourselves?
don't actions and direct quotes from people more important criteria to judge?
You are assuming this cannot be manipulated? LOL You can take the same two circumstances and spin it however you want. This is often achieved by leaving pertinent information out.
Some school board members, especially Democrats, expect more state funding next year with a new governor in charge. Tom Wolf, the Democratic nominee for governor, has proposed additional education funding from a 5-percent severance tax on natural gas drilling, which he says would generate $700 million in new revenue.
Firstly it's unlikely he will be able to get this passed in any event that is really not the issue here. Under the Corbett administration a fuel tax was passed on franchises that will be used for transporation. This was correctly reported as indirectly increasing the cost of gas becsue those costs will be passed onto the consumer. The same type of proposal being proposed by Wolf is spun off as him sticking it to the gas companies to increase education funding.
Quote:
On Thursday, Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican seeking a second term, signed a state budget and boasted about investing a record $12 billion in state funding for early, basic and postsecondary education. School boards had to approve a district budget by June 30 for the fiscal year that began July 1.
"Boasted", despite the increased spending the article is giving it a negative spin using that word. With a single word you have turned what should be a positive thing into something negative.
Quote:
Corbett’s first budget, the 2011-2012 budget, cut almost $1 billion from education statewide, and those cuts were not restored for 2012-2013.
This is factually incorrect becsue it was only 500 million. Either the writer didn't do his/her homework or purposely lied. The reason for the "cut" was because of a loss of one billion in stimulus funding. The only cuts to the states expenditure on education came previously under Rendell, he used the Stimulus money to fill the gap. The first budget under Corbett actually increased the states expenditure 500 million which somehow morphs into a 1 billion cut.
It's one of many sources. Not the end all be all.
So did you read the article? What in it is incorrect?
What it is is incomplete, as the article fails to report that there have been 'ties' between the media and all the US presidential administrations.
The complaints about liberal media bias is more about conservatives claiming victimization, and reinforced by tea party politicians blaming the "lame stream media" for the country's unfavorable impressions of them.
"First came video "news releases" produced by the Bush administration using a TV news format. Then came three conservative columnists who got big paychecks from federal agencies."
"The rapid expansion of America’s right-wing media began in the 1980s as the Reagan administration coordinated foreign policy initiatives with conservative media executives, including Rupert Murdoch, and then cleared away regulatory hurdles, reports Robert Parry."
"Charles Wick, director of the U.S. Information Agency, arranged at least two face-to-face meetings between Murdoch and Reagan, the first on Jan. 18, 1983, when the administration was lining up private financing for its propaganda campaign, according to records at the Reagan presidential library in Simi Valley, California."
Laughter is often used as a defense mechanism against uncomfortable realization. The fact that you posted nothing to justify your implied claim is quite telling.
That's an important point. I've mentioned several times recently that the right wing has stopped criticizing liberals for what they used to criticize us for (compassion and consideration for others) and instead engage in this ridiculously nonsensical criticism of liberals for the terrible things that right wingers commit. It's seems like some strange form of collective psychological projection.
You yet again fail to actually address or answer to my or others' points on your faulty claims.
You have been caught using double standards and hypocrisy here so many times I'm losing count. You never answer to any of this. You seem completely unable to have any kind of real debate. Just endless preprogrammed whining about the "right wing."
The republicans are brainwashed by blah blah The following documentary has blah blah
All of our news outlets are owned by a group of large corporations, and if any reporter on our major networks tries to do a negative story about large corporations they are told blah blah
If you want to know whats "actually" going on you have to watch documentaries,
And FreespeechTV and LinkTV have programing, documentaries, and several radio/TV hosts that say things never told in the mainstream media.
Personally I would recommend just going to Netflix, Youtube, or PBS when a news story interests you, and then watch a documentary about it (and if its the right documentary you will learn things the mainstream media will never tell you.)
These great, unbiased truth telling organizations you are getting information from are WarCrime911, TruthOut, WealthNews, WitnessIraq, SourceWatch, FreeSpeechTV, etc.
You do know that these are all extremist sites right? These are not dedicated, dig for the truth organizations, they are all agenda driven and the agenda is leftist.
You also know that documentary doesn't mean true right? Just because Michael Moore claims to do documentaries doesn't mean his stories are true, it just means they are non-fiction vs fiction.
Your funniest comment is that "and if its the right documentary". Yes, God forbid you get the wrong documentary and learn something contrary to your point of view.
That is why original sources are what is important, not what some activist has to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3
The mainstream media has a conservative bias, and its easy to prove. Which event below received the most media attention?
A.) The GW Bush White House saying 935 lies about Iraq.
B.) Dick Cheney a Halliburton CEO giving Haliburton billions of dollars in no-bid US government contracts in Iraq (after Cheney said 75-100 lies about Iraq.)
C.) Bill Clinton saying 1 sex life lie.
Answer: Bill Clinton's sex life lie received 1,000x more media attention than A. and B. above.
All of the corporations that own our major networks (love) getting republican corporate tax cuts and republican corporate handouts.
Cheney wasn't at Haliburton during the Iraq war obviously and had no ties to it. Kellogg Root Brown started getting no-bid contracts in the Middle East during the Clinton Administration because they were the only ones who could do the job. The no bids contracts later were rollover contracts from the same ones and new ones where they were again, the only contractor qualified to do the jobs.
I will take your reference link though that says Bill Clinton's scandal received "1000x" more coverage. I would say that once his lies were exposed it got more coverage, but where was the coverage before and where was the coverage on all the other women who made allegations? Robert Packwood was hounded from office on less offenses.
Your other links were DailyKos & ThinkProgress? Two of the most extremist, hard left winger sites there are. How are they credible?
If the news media gets "Republican corporate tax cuts", why didn't the Democrats remove them when they controlled the House, Senate and Presidency? The answer might be that the owners and management of most major media outlets are Democrats and heavy Democrat contributors. Have you never been on OpenSecrets.org?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
Republicans and their platform stand squarely on favoring corporations and those who benefit from the profits, with 0 regulations to bridle greed and exploitation in favor of business activities....
This is such a shallow, junior high school understanding of the world and insulting to people who have sincere principles biased towards freedom.
It is very sad that you believe the 60,000,000 people who voted for Mitt Romney did so for reasons of greed and exploitation. I mean it isn't even logical.
Show me any Republican who thinks there should be zero regulations. Show me one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
don't actions and direct quotes from people more important criteria to judge? Reports of events and direct quotes, no matter biased left or right, are verifiable facts. Fox and MSNBC might encourage you to interpret these facts one way, put words in your mouth. But we also are in posession of our own minds. Can we not judge the consequences of the positions conservatives take and the laws they pass on the society we live in for ourselves?
You still don't get it and have the barest of intellectual understanding.
As stated many times, the stories that aren't covered are as important as those that are. Which quotes are chosen are crucial too as they slant the coverage.
I am guessing you have no idea who Pete Williams is and why his story was important, but completely ignored by the usual suspects.
Whenver i discuss politics with Republicans, they claim i am brainwashed by "mainstream media" and that i don't know the real truth. If all the network news outlets, print media, cable news are colluding to keep the real truth from us, then Where from do Republicans get their news? When i ask i never get a straight answer. Do they all have a secret news outlet? Is it published outside of US somewhere?
I agree one needs to read carefully the actual news reporting and seperate facts from opinion to understand the real issues. too much MSNBC or FOX can muddle your brain. But i don't know what other source one can turn to other than main stream media if you want to understand what is going on. Is WSJ main stream media or not? While i abhor their editorials i find the actual news reporting is excellent.
I apologize for my previous rambling post I was very tired when I wrote it. And thats just how I get my news.
Personally I believe you already have a good method of getting news. But on any issue where you really want to get every side of information just Google search that subject with "Mother Jones" and/or "ThinkProgress". MJ and TP seem to report on most things.
Just realize the republicans are brainwashed to believe everything Mother Jones and ThinkProgress says is a lie.
For Obama during this period, just over a third of the stories were clearly positive in tone (36%), while a similar number (35%) were neutral or mixed. A smaller number (29%) were negative.
For McCain, by comparison, nearly six in ten of the stories studied were decidedly negative in nature (57%), while fewer than two in ten (14%) were positive.
If a similar study was done for Fox news programs with Obama and Ted Cruz, what do you think the results would be?
Obama Clearly positive in tone (1%)
(99%) were negative.
Ted Cruz clearly positive in tone (99%)
(1%) were negative.
Republicans complain about bias in the media "BUT FOX NEWS AND RUSH RADIO ARE THE MOST BIASED NEWS GROUPS OUT ARE."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
of news to be aired on the formerly big three networks. That's right. Every morning there's a conference call with the White House and those networks. And it shows.
